ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TEOTICO VS. AGDA

197 SCRA 675

FACTS
Democrito Agda Sr. was appointed on June 16, 1984, as Chief, Fiber Industry
Development Authority by Cesar C. Lanuza, former Administrator of FIDA and was designated
Acting Regional Administrator for FIDA Regions I and II. On November 13, 1987, three
months before the local elections, which was held on January 18, 1987, Agda was reassigned
by former FIDA Administrator Lanuza to the FIDA main office and designated Epitacio E.
Lanuza, Jr. as officer-in-charge (OIC) of FIDA Region 1. On December 15, 1987, Agda
requested the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to stay the implementation of Special Order
No. 219. On January 7, 1988, Teotico implemented said Special Order 219, despite the fact
that Agda requested the Civil Service Commission to stop the implementation of the said
Special Order 219. On January 12, 1988, Agda requested Teotico to defer the implementation
of said Special Order No. 219. Teotico again implemented Special Order 219, requiring
petitioner to submit his accomplishment report. Agda requested Teotico to defer the
implementation of said special order, considering that the same has not yet been resolved by
the Secretary of Agriculture. On December 11, 1987, former FIDA Administrator designated
Wilfredo G. Siguritan as officer-in-charge of FIDA Region 1 Onn March 9, 1988, FIDA Region
1 administrator Siguritan requested the Agda through Teotico to require Agda to turn over to
him the keys of the vault in FIDA Region 1 and on March 14, 1988, Teotico implemented
Special Order No. 219, requiring Agda to turn over said keys to OIC Seguritan. On March 16,
1988, Agda requested the Secretary of Agriculture to defer the implementation of said special
order pending resolution of said office. On March 23, 1988, Teotico implemented Special
Order 219 by instituting administrative charges against Agdape for insubordination prejudicial
to the best interest of the service. On April 4, 1988, Teotico placed Agda under preventive
suspension, effective April 6, 1988. Agda requested respondent Teotico to give him twenty
(20) days from April 11, 1988, within which to submit his explanation to the formal
administrative charges. Teotico granted him an extension of only five days from receipt of
memorandum. Agda sent a letter to the Commission on Elections, inquiring if Special Order
No. 219, series of 1987, of Administrator Lanuza was referred and submitted to it for approval
three days before its implementation. The Commission, informed private respondent that
records of the Department do not show that aforesaid Special Order was submitted or
referred to this Commission for approval. Agda filed with the court a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Injunction with preliminary injunction and restraining order against Teotico and
the three (3) members of the FIDA-AC. The court granted said petition and ordered to
immediately reinstate Democrito O. Agda, Sr., from his previous position as Fiber Regional
Administrator, FIDA Region I, with full back wages and allowances mandated by law.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not Agda was appointed as Fiber Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I.
2. Whether or not Agda failed to exhaust administrative remedy as mandated by P. D.
807.

RULING
1. No. Agda was not appointed as Fiber Regional Administrator, FIDA Region I, but as
CHIEF FIBER DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, he was not appointed to any specific station. He
was merely designated as Acting Regional Administrator For FIDA Regions I and II.
Not having been appointed to any specific station, he could be tranferred or assigned
to any other place by the head of office where in the opinion of the latter his services may be
utilized more effectively.
 Temporary appointments or appointments in an acting capacity are terminable at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. Agda can neither claim a vested right to the station to
which he was assigned nor to security of tenure thereat. Accordingly, private respondent
could be re-assigned to any place and Special Order No. 219 dated 13 November 1987
reassigning private respondent at the Office of the Administrator of the FIDA "in the interest of
the service" was in order. Although denominated as "reassignment", it was in fact a mere
detail in that office.

2. Yes. Agda made no attempt to avail of this remedy. The Civil Service Decree, P.D. No.
807, allows transfer, detail and re-assignment. If the employee concerned believes that there
is no justification therefore, he "may appeal his case to" the Civil Service Commission.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the decision to detail an employee shall be
executory. Agda invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission when he filed his
Urgent Petition To Stay Implementation and Nullify the Special Order in question with the
Civil Service Commission. It does not, however, appear to that he exerted genuine and
sincere efforts to obtain an expeditious resolution thereof. What appears to be clear is that
he used its pendency as an excuse for his refusal to comply with the memorandum of Teotico
of 7 January 1988 and the routing slip request of 11 March 1988 for the key to the safety
vault.chanrblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Furthermore, even in the cases of transfer or detail within the probihited period prior to
an election, an aggrieved party is provided an appropriate administrative remedy. Again Agda
made no attempt to avail of this remedy. In his Urgent Petition to Stay Implementation and
Nullify Special Order No. 219, nothing is mentioned about a violation of the ban on transfer or
detail. The reason seems too obvious. Until he filed the Amended Petition before the court
below he did not consider his re-assignment per Special Order No. 219 as a violation of the
ban on transfer or detail during the three-month period before the
election.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Not having yet fully exhausted the existing adequate administrative remedy which he
already took advantage of, Agda cannot be permitted to abandon it at his chosen time and
leisure and invoke the jurisdiction of regular courts.

Submitted by:

JEENA P. PACLIBAR
LLB II-E, 9:30 – 11:30

Submitted to:

ATTY. GWYNN T. CIMANES

Professor